I would have liked examples of the 2 different styles. Were the Dick and Jane books of the 60’s an example of Calkin’s original program? I do remember also having phonics lessons. Maybe the school changed programs? Decoding does seem a much better choice.
This is good to read. Sadly, too late for many people who will never be able to read as well as they could if they were taught differently.
Back in the mid to late '60s, my sister and I were taught phonetics in an experimental classroom at Ann Fox elementary in Chicago. Even though we moved to a school district that used older methods of teaching reading after two years, our advantage in reading lasted all the way through high school and beyond. I'm so grateful we had that opportunity.
I remember teachers in 4th grade being amazed by the "difficult" adult books we were reading. The other kids at that school had trouble with grade-specific books. We knew exactly why our reading was more advanced, and we told them all about phonetics.
This is a great shift. It's hard to admit you've been wrong so big props to her and her organization. I spent several years in education fighting for this shift, but it's hard to convince a teacher that has spent his/her career teaching a disproven method that it doesn't work. It would mean admitting they fell short, which isn't really their fault at all - but it is super hard to disassociate that feedback from ourselves.
Wow. Really fascinating. I know very little about this and would love to know more.
When I was young, it was definitely all about decoding. I have vivid memories of my first grade reading lessons, because I remember the weird way my first grade teacher, Mrs Owens, held the chalk in her hand (two pieces, different colors, between different knuckles) and poked the chalkboard for each letter, while saying each individual sound, like: "Tree. T-Rrr-Eee. Tree. Boat. Buh-Oh-T. Boat"
I would have liked examples of the 2 different styles. Were the Dick and Jane books of the 60’s an example of Calkin’s original program? I do remember also having phonics lessons. Maybe the school changed programs? Decoding does seem a much better choice.
This earlier article from the same publication goes in-depth on the different teaching styles: https://readup.com/comments/apmreportsorg/how-a-flawed-idea-is-teaching-millions-of-kids-to-be-poor-readers
Really interesting stuff!
This is good to read. Sadly, too late for many people who will never be able to read as well as they could if they were taught differently.
Back in the mid to late '60s, my sister and I were taught phonetics in an experimental classroom at Ann Fox elementary in Chicago. Even though we moved to a school district that used older methods of teaching reading after two years, our advantage in reading lasted all the way through high school and beyond. I'm so grateful we had that opportunity.
I remember teachers in 4th grade being amazed by the "difficult" adult books we were reading. The other kids at that school had trouble with grade-specific books. We knew exactly why our reading was more advanced, and we told them all about phonetics.
This is a great shift. It's hard to admit you've been wrong so big props to her and her organization. I spent several years in education fighting for this shift, but it's hard to convince a teacher that has spent his/her career teaching a disproven method that it doesn't work. It would mean admitting they fell short, which isn't really their fault at all - but it is super hard to disassociate that feedback from ourselves.
Wow. Really fascinating. I know very little about this and would love to know more.
When I was young, it was definitely all about decoding. I have vivid memories of my first grade reading lessons, because I remember the weird way my first grade teacher, Mrs Owens, held the chalk in her hand (two pieces, different colors, between different knuckles) and poked the chalkboard for each letter, while saying each individual sound, like: "Tree. T-Rrr-Eee. Tree. Boat. Buh-Oh-T. Boat"